|
The above answer is an excellent theological argument. Additional thoughts: It is difficult to convince someone whose mind is already made up. If the prophets could not convince all people during their lifetimes, we can't have any hope of that! Sometimes the best thing you can do is just to try try or even just simply be an example with your faith and differing viewpoint. It should be self-evident that the very fact that accidents can create order and beauty (such as in fractal geometry) itself requires a higher intelligence and some sort of plan. I suspect that many astronomers/cosmologists who profess atheism and who reject religion actually don't wholly reject the idea that the universe could have a creative force, inherent meaning, or inherent purpose. I think it is near-impossible to study the heavens without having some sort of awe and sense of mystery. I think it is more common that they reject the form of organized religion they were exposed to growing up because it was unsophisticated, insufficient, or unhealthy. For instance, sometimes, in some places, children are given the mental picture of God as a bearded, angry white man. Or, they may have had negative experiences with provincialness or hypocrisy in a religious community. Religion may simply not have been discussed with a depth that was compelling. Of course this isn't everyone, but I think it happens more often than not. Otherwise, throughout most of history, science was associated with theism or some sort of religious/metaphysical belief. Certain, it was in the Islamic heritage. Here is an interesting podcast about Jesuit astronomers. Of course, it is from a Christian perspective, but it discusses their work as a way of finding God in all things, and I am sure it is possible to compare and contrast issues with an Islamic perspective. https://onbeing.org/programs/guy-consolmagno-george-coyne-asteroids-stars-and-the-love-of-god/ Some interesting quotations from it: * It’s only human beings that have this curiosity to understand: What’s that up in the sky? How do we fit into that? Who are we? Where do we come from? And this is a hunger that is as deep and as important as a hunger for food because if you starve a person in that sense, you’re depriving them of their humanity. And being able to feed this, being able to make a person more human or make them welcome into the great adventure of the human race for the 20th century — going to the moon, things like that — that was really important to them and really important to everybody I talked to. And suddenly — oh, that’s why we do this. * Those classic scientists believed that understanding the natural world was the best way to understand the mind of its maker. |
as salam alaikum the order present in the universe is an empirical fact that no sound mind can dispute. The earth, the sky, the clouds, the rain, the sun, the moon, etc., and all the living beings on the planet, all interact with each others and works according to specific sets of rules and criterions. This indicates, at least indirectly, the presence of a Creator who created and sustains the world. Also, if the world was just the product of accidents we may ask ourselves: who/what created those accidents? Who/what put them into motion? A thing cannot be created by itself because it would imply its existence before its existence which is an impossibility. We cannot also suppose that physical matter always existed with no cause because corporeality depends on temporary qualities such place, color, movement, stasis, etc. that need to be caused by some external agent (otherwise they would be already attached to their subjects). We conclude therefore that there is one Creator for the whole universe upon Whom the whole creation depends. With prayers for your success. |
|
There are many scientists (particularly physicists), who, on a scientific basis, conclude that there must be a conscious transcendent being behind creation. If we look at the work of scientists and why they conclude that there is a God, this can help to strengthen our UNDERSTANDING (and not just our faith). The work of Wolfgang Smith is interesting. He is a scientist who has pointed out the philosophical errors that form the basis of today's (mainly post-Enlightenment) science. His books include 'The Quantum Enigma' and 'Cosmos and Transcendence'. It is also useful to explore a range of theodicies (arguments that tackle the question of the suffering of the innocent and the justice of God). For those that argue that there is no life after death: there are millions of anecdotal accounts that testify to people encountering those that have died in one way or another - and these cut across all cultures. There is certainly evidence that some way of existing continues after our bodies have expired. So far I haven't come across good explanations for this by atheists. |
Bismillah Thank you for your question. It is important to be well equipped to deal with the arguments of atheists especially if their arguments and opinions have an effect on your faith. In order to do this you should seek out scholars who specialise in the intellectual sciences and speak to them about the issues and questions that remain unanswered for you. They should also be able to help you construct a framework for your beliefs as well as show you the weaknesses in the presuppositions of atheistic beliefs. In the modern study of the philosophy of religion it is well accepted that religious belief is justified. May you always be successful |
We use cookies to enhance your experience on our site. Essential cookies are necessary for the site to function. Analytics cookies help us understand how you use the site. Learn more
Control how we use cookies on this site. Essential cookies cannot be disabled as they are required for the site to function.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site.
